Meeting Conduct, Tips of Reviewing Applications, and History of Development and the DRC Was Discussed
For the first time in San Marino’s history, the Design Review Committee received formal training. The DRC has come under a lot of scrutiny lately, and this training is a way to ensure all members understand the proper procedures of conducting meetings and reviewing applications.
Rich Haserot, who has had 14 years of experience on the DRC and the Planning Commission and has reviewed between 12,000 and 15,000 applications, led the meeting on Jan. 30. Meeting conduct, a brief history of the city’s residential development, a history of the DRC guidelines, tips to reviewing applications and the meaning of the word “compatibility” were some of the topics discussed.
Chairman Bharat Patel, Vice Chair Frank Hsu, William Dietrich, Kevin Cheng and alternates John Dustin and Corinna Wong participated in the Saturday training. Only Strefan Fauble was absent.
Meeting Conduct
The Design Review Committee, along with the Planning Commission, are the two advisory bodies that also make legal decisions for the city. Other advisory bodies such as the Recreation Commission are advisory only.
Haserot advised members to speak clearly into the microphone during their meetings.
“This is the only legal record of how each of you arrive at the decision you arrive at,” he said. “It’s a struggle to listen to those minutes and understand what’s going on.”
He added to have a better recording, it’s best to identify who is speaking, especially during deliberations, and how the conclusion was reached.
He said members should be careful with the words they say, be prepared, act professional and be decisive.
“The applicant and the audience want to see leadership,” Haserot said. “Everyone will respect you more for it, even when you turn someone down.”
The applications need to be ready before they come before the DRC. Too often applications have inconsistencies or are missing information, Haserot said. When that happens, it is a waste of the committee’s time, a waste of the applicant’s time and a waste of staff time to let it get to a public hearing before it is ready.
Ideally staff won’t let that happen, but some applications do get through to that stage. It is up to the chair to decide whether to take audience comments on an application that isn’t fully ready.
It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide what he wants. The committee should not say, “If you did this (design), I can approve it.”
“You are the Design Review Committee, not the Design Committee,” Haserot said, stating they should gently throw the plan back to the applicant. He added that he has observed way too much back-and-forth between the applicant and the committee.
If the DRC is tough on the applicant, Haserot said he believes word will get around, and it will improve the quality of the applications.
It’s fine to ask the applicant questions for clarification, but there should not be a back-and-forth discussion. Deliberations, for example, should be viewed as a closed meeting between committee members only. If the chair allows for a rebuttal from the applicant, the public may want to add in extra comments as well, which could cause the meeting to get out of control.
There is no written procedure for whether to allow comments during the deliberations though, Haserot said. Once the committee has reached a decision, it is okay to directly address the applicant to make sure he understands why the committee voted the way it did.
“It’s always appropriate to ask, “Do you understand what happened and why,’” he said.
Haserot reminded everyone that the DRC and staff are a team, and the chair, vice chair and staff need to work together to make the meeting run smoother. Staff can help the committee understand aspects of the application that might be confusing. They can also answer questions if they hear some sort of policy debate during the meeting.
City council recently came up with a policy to allow three continuances – maximum – for a hearing. Haserot said he hoped it will help create a better process rather than give more denials.
“If something has to be continued, there’s a breakdown in the system,” he said stating it’s just his opinion.
It is very rare that an application would be denied at the first hearing. However, it’s clear a two-story monstrosity in a one-story neighborhood wouldn’t get approved, for example.
The applicant is now required to meet with planning staff before the hearing, which should help increase the quality of applications. If it is within code, it can come before the DRC, even if staff does not support it.
History of Development
San Marino was generally built out from the 1920s to 1950s with an emphasis on European and Mediterranean styles. All the houses were built individually – meaning there were no track homes.
“You bought a lot and hired an architect,” Haserot said. “This resulted in a great variety of architectural styles.”
The majority are true to form and tend to have similar characteristics to those in the neighborhood.
Just after World War II, the east section of San Marino was filled in as well as north of Huntington Drive, east of the high school.
A lot of the older homes in San Marino have not been maintained, and should be replaced or renovated, he said.
However, a different design needs to be done deliberately and delicately so it blends well in the legal neighborhood.
Generally, homes are built well below code limit, but that’s not always the case.
The city has seven different area districts with different code limits for each district regarding things like setbacks, lot coverage and livable area. Lot coverage, for example, is based on statute lots. Though code right now allows a bigger home on a smaller lot, the committee can’t automatically say yes.
“The applicant might say ‘I’m entitled,’ but you have to deal with compatibility,” Haserot said.
History of the DRC
The Design Review Committee was formed in San Marino in 1989 when problems with development began to emerge. Real estate prices started to escalate.
“The value of dirt became much higher… all of a sudden building to lot size becomes important,” he said.
The result was that inappropriate sizes were built. The DRC was meant to fix this problem, Haserot said. The Planning Commission reviewed all proposed projects prior to the DRC, but they didn’t look at designs.
The first DRC chair was Howard Brody, who served as chair for four years. The next chair was Bob Cooper, who served in that position for five years. Then Rich Haserot chaired for four years.
A series of chairs followed Haserot, especially after city council imposed a one year chair rule.
History of the DRC
Guidelines
The residential and commercial design guidelines were adopted in 1999.
Haserot was on the team that helped write the guidelines, along with Brian Boecking, a planning aide whom Haserot credited with writing 80 percent of it. Don Cotton, the mayor at the time, David Saldana, the planning and building director at the time, and citizen advisors all took part in the year-long committee to create the guidelines.
People were having some difficulty understanding how decisions were being made because there were a lot of inconsistencies with the decisions. The public was getting confused over what was acceptable, Haserot said.
The committee who worked on the guidelines struggled with a lot of the wording since the guidelines needed to be broad enough to include everything, but narrow enough to “have teeth.”
Originally, the intent was to use the guidelines internally to help keep decisions consistent until they realized applicants would be able to use them too.
Since the guidelines are now 17 years old, Haserot said it may be time to revise them, but he knows how difficult it would be to do so considering the amount of staff time required. For now, he said he doesn’t see it happening unless “real fault” is found.
Reviewing Applications and Compatibility
Everything the DRC does is subjective, Haserot said. That’s because every application they see already meets code.
If it didn’t, the application would have to go before the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit or variance.
The DRC considers four things – compatibility with the neighborhood, compatibility with the structure itself, that colors and materials match the existing structure and finally, if there is a balance between the development and neighbors’ reasonable expectation of privacy.
What’s presented, though within code, should still be reviewed as to how the proposal sits on the lot and what it’s doing to the infrastructure. All things need to be incorporated delicately.
The application should be extensive with a narrative of the project, landscape plan and much more. A lengthy checklist was used years ago, and it looks like it will be brought back.
Haserot said there were times he checked the numbers in the plans and they didn’t add up correctly. Sometimes he was inaccurate in his calculations, while other times he was correct and the numbers were over code. He advised someone on the DRC to double check the numbers just to be sure everything works out correctly.
When looking at a plan, he said to look at the big picture first. Ask these questions: Is the overall concept working? What are the setbacks compared to the neighbors? How is the visual massing? What is the architectural style?
Then get into the details. Look at the roof and the windows, the most visual part of the home, in regards to material, size, shape, color, moldings, etc.
“If it’s not going to work, clearly let the applicant know it requires a major redesign,” Haserot said.
If it is an addition, no one should be able to tell the addition from the original when complete.
Avoid something that stands out and screams, “I’m the most important in the neighborhood,” Haserot said. That’s not what San Marino is about.
Compatibility does not mean “same.” It just means it blends in and works well with the neighborhood and with itself.
The house should be pure in form to each individual architect. If it is missing a common feature on a specific style it will stand out, he said.
It doesn’t have to be the exact same style, size, shape or even height of what’s next door.
Haserot concluded by reminding the DRC members to emphasize the code, but keep in mind that no applicants are entitled to automatic approval either. “The project may just not work.”
